With Every Civil Liberty Now Deemed Unconstitutional, Judicial Review Turns Its Eye to Scientific Law
Article published by the Young Americans for Science (YAS)
In a recent landmark decision, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 in favor of overturning the Bill of Rights and all additional amendments to the United States Constitution. The majority opinion relied heavily upon an originalist interpretation of the Constitution and stated that “If the Founders really wanted us to have all these rights, they would have been in the very first draft of the Constitution.”
With the supply of civil liberties completely eradicated and nothing left to debate in Washington, the Supreme Court has had no choice but to expand its jurisdiction and use the process of judicial review to scrutinize a different category of laws: scientific ones.
The shift in the Court’s priorities reportedly occurred during a lunch break catered by Panera when Justice Brett Kavanaugh casually mentioned that he did not “buy into” Newton’s Second Law of Gravity.
“In between bites of his bread bowl, he was going on and on about how he just really didn’t think that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. He was like, ‘Well I — allegedly — sexually assaulted someone and now I’m on the Supreme Court, so it’s a lot like the Constitution saying all men are created equal. It’s just not true,’” said Rich Mann, a former clerk of Justice Kavanaugh’s who was present at the lunch.
Two weeks after these alleged comments were made, the Supreme Court unanimously voted to overturn Newton’s Second Law. Accordingly, all mentions of it have been stripped from the public school system’s textbooks via Wite Out pens to avoid the costs of purchasing new ones.
The decision in Newton v. United States has paved the road for what will be an incredibly long and strenuous battle against the very institution of science itself. Within the next decade, the United States is positioned to become the global leader in scientific regression.
In addition to the new Newton decision, the Supreme Court has also recently voted to overturn Scopes v. Tennessee and affirmed a law replacing Kepler’s Law. In a diss to both Johannes Kepler and Nicolaus Copernicus, the new law asserts that planets orbit in an elliptical pattern not around the sun but around the United States of America.
Not every case against science has been victorious, though.
After what was a shocking decision to some, continental drift will remain unperturbed after a 7-2 decision was made in the case of People v. Pangaea. Notably, the votes were only cast this way following a compelling dissenting opinion from Justice John Roberts.
In his opinion he wrote, “Come on guys, just look at South America and Africa. If you push them together they would so clearly match perfectly.”
Next, the Supreme Court plans to review the Laws of Thermodynamics. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and other members of the newly formed Freedom-Not-Facts Caucus are looking to the Supreme Court with great anticipation as opening statements are preparing to be heard.
“The Laws of Thermodynamics came out in the 1850s,” said Rep. Greene. “It’s ridiculous to say that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they wanted Americans to have the right to entropy. I don’t even know what entropy is, but it sure as hell doesn’t sound safe for our children.”
While at least one side of Washington raves about the progress being made in the Supreme Court, the rest of America seems dubious. In a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, a record-breaking 61% of American voters disapproved of the current actions of the Supreme Court and supported observing Scientific Law at the federal level.
Regardless of this, the Supreme Court stands resolute in their war on science.
“We’ve been sitting on this bench for so long, it only makes sense that we’ve run out of things to strike down,” said Justice Clarence Thomas in a leaked voice message. “With all these frivolous rights, liberties, and scientific facts, Americans are becoming soft. The Constitution was written before the Scientific Revolution and it’s important that we honor that.”